Charitable Giving Falls for First Time in Years

http://makeashorterlink.com/?M50B12856

onations to the country's largest charities in 2002 dropped for the first time in a dozen years, with some categories, like health and the arts, slipping by more than 20 percent, according to a survey by The Chronicle of Philanthropy.

The nation's 400 biggest charities, ranked by how much they gather in money and gifts each year, collected a total of $46.9 billion worth of donations in 2002, compared with $47.5 billion in 2001, after adjusting for inflation. That is a drop of 1.2 percent, a notable departure from the average annual increase of 12 percent over the previous five years, the survey found.

<snip>

Though a general economic malaise seemed to be the culprit for most of the declines, The Chronicle said, world events and the nation's political atmosphere bolstered giving to certain causes.

...more...

I thought that the *Cos tax-cuts were supposed to "spur" charitable donations? Must be some more of that "libral" media thingie...

tax break DIDN'T help.

is that they don't like the govt "forcing" them to pay taxes, they would rather voluntarily give to charities. I tell people who say this, who are you kidding? You know as well as I do that, left to their own choice, people will give FAR less to charities than they pay now in taxes. And that's especially true for the greedy bastard top dog Republicans who are getting the tax breaks.

...it seems the very rich ARE different from the rest of us. Once Bush abolished (phased out)the inheritance tax, the richest Americans'(their family fortunes now safe from taxation) have stopped making charitable donations. Apparently, they weren't philanthropic in the first place, they we're just interested in tax avoidance.

Meanwhile, the rest of us-- who will see no benefit from the inheritance tax phase out-- are continuing to give at prior levels.

To the actual loss in buying power that the US workers are dealing with. Expense increases are outpacing income increases.

that donations fell "for the first time in a dozen years" while yet another Bush was infesting the White House. Yeah, that's it. No real connection at all...

:argh:
dbt

Must be. You have to be right. There's no other explanation. Just serendipity that we cut taxes on the rich and the charities stop getting donations.

Yeah, that's the ticket. A coincidence.
The Professor

when you use this could you indicate the news source - I tend to hesitate to click on when I have no idea to what/where I am clicking. Or use the html code in place of make a shorter link that indicates the source (ex link shows as:story from NYT). Thanks.

:)

I use the "shorter link" think when the links are so long that I know that they will appear "broken" and hard to use ...

but have no problem indicating where the story will come from

:D

got a friend in a high place who has broadened the burden of faith-based charity to all taxpayers - this means they can reduce the amount of their donations to their handlers by the amount they figure is proportional from their returns - spreading out the base of giving to fund projects is sooooo...smart! Praise Jebus - even the heathen, the heretics and, perish the thought, working, taxpaying gay persons must now donate, even though the Good Christians don't have to hire them. Hallelujah!

or could it be that they may strongly believe that charity begins at home and they haven't seen other Good Christians taking up the burden of the "faithful" poor and continue to be pounded by the thought that they might be interfering with God's will for such people if they help. Their adult children, many w/advanced degrees, and their families are moving back w/them, and they've been scrounging their own budgets for school fees/supplies, new gym shoes, extra milk and bread, more toilet flushing and lectricity, and they won't be able to meet their friends for that extra holiday in London/Vegas.

after my job was eliminated in early 2002, things just keep getting tighter and tighter at my house. Last year at Christmas, I bought a jacket and snow boots for a child who didn't have any, while my son wore old boots that were full of holes and an old coat that was way too small. This year, I'm going to buy something for a needy child, but I can't do it at the expense of my family. Isn't that going a bit too far? Yes? No?

In the old days, when I had a job and we had a cushion, we gave freely and generously. But now we're a one-income household in a part of the country where you need two incomes just to sustain a lower-middle class lifestyle. I fight off red ink every month. Right now, the only flexible part of our household budget is the grocery bill; everything else is pretty damn well fixed. Anything extra, anything I give to anyone, comes directly off my family's meager dinnertable.

So where do you draw the line? How much should those of us who are barely holding it together give to those who have even less than we have? And why should the entire burden be on those of us who are barely holding it together, for God's sake? I count my blessings every day that we have what we have, because I know there are millions of people who would love to have just 1/10th of it. I don't take a single thing for granted. But the government has to do something to help the indigent, because I'm only one person and I don't have a helluvalot to give. Does it make me a rotten person that I'm hoarding most of what I have for my family? Would I be a better person if I joined the ranks of the homeless? Would I then be able to stand to look at myself in the mirror and no longer feel like I've been reduced to a shithouse rat, hoarding my crumbs in the corner? I can't stand the kind of person this economy has forced me to become. I didn't used to be like this. I'm sitting here defending the right to be selfish! It makes me sick.

who died in 1984 at the age of 90, always said:

charity begins at home and I always knew that she meant we should make certain that our families came first, before all others - do not feel defensive about caring for your own.

Am trying to find a balance, because I know there are so many people hurting a thousand times worse than I am. But at the same time, what good is it if I gave away EVERYTHING and merely joined their ranks?

Balance, balance, moderation in everything, as my daddy always said...!

goes a very long way. Volunteering once a week at a food bank can make a difference. Writing up a press release for a nonprofit that has great needs in the community - to bring attention to those needs - can make an impact. In times when it is harder to 'give' - sometimes a little time can go a very long way. *Sometimes we forget that we are great resources, and that our time - even if a very little amount - can be invaluable to organizations serving others.*

You give what you can. And, yes, you must secure your own family first. But if you lost your job, you have time to give.

What about a single mom who has a job and is barely struggling to pay for child care? Can you give her child care? Money-wise, that's a huge chunk of change. Huge.

Or something else. But you get the idea.

Resources are infinite. Not money now. But other resources.

Hang tough.

I just wish I could give more, the way I used to. I forget sometimes that my time is worth something... thanks for the reminder!:)

Still, I worry about where these good people are going to get food and clothing when Bushco is shutting down so many resources. They can't eat my time or wear my time, know what I mean? I worry... what can I say.

you are a beautiful person (the worrying). Your time is valuable - no question about it. But the material needs also do not go away, you are right. Hopefully some of your time given - frees up a few resources for the organization (maybe time of another person working) that can be used to help secure some of those material things.

I agree, though. The needs are growing - while there is less to give. :(

United Way this year at work because they publically dismissed Susan Sarandon earlier this year. They chose to be partisan and chose to do it publically rather than privately, so I made it clear they would get none of my money this year.

I haven't been able to donate as much money this year to my favorite charities, but I have donated things. I donated dishes, clothes, furniture etc. to a resale shop that benefits AIDS patients. The Brown Elephant is a wonderful place, if you are looking to donate household items.

Hope thing pick up soon, for everyone.

As late singer/songwriter Harry Chapin said, "You can't expect rich people to do much, because they're just holding onto their money, and you really can't expect poor people to do much, because they're struggling like hell to make do. It really comes down to people like you and I."

:-( My first reaction to this news was that it was somehow a set up to enable Bush's faith based charities initiative to be passed more easily. It is a sad commentary when one suspects their leaders of fudging and lieing in order to reach their political goal of getting elected--in this case Bush might just strut to the starting gate to demand faith based charities gets passed generously--once the starting bell rings and all the horses are out of the gate, it will be very hard to get them back in. I don't mean to disparage anyone's present condition by saying this--I am just suspicious about it. Churches will be testifying that their charities cannot keep up with demand for lack of donations, etc. etc. and I suspect we shall see editorials written bemoaning the case of the poor who were used to getting a hot meal at the local church soup kitchen, but who now must face starvation because the church had to close up it's kitchen for lack of donations and articles of that type. Really negative about this, but then, we are suffering with a lying boob that was not elected in the White House, who lied to his people in order to take the country into a war and kill thousands of innocents, who is known for his sleezy, cheap, cowardly bullying and blatant disrespect for that which he has vowed to protect and defend. I put nothing past him

Be prepared for the government-sponsored onslaught of Contemporary Christian Crap.

donating to anyone that supported the republican party...now I take used clothes to a shelter or downtown and leave by the park benchs....this helps all ppeopple who need clothing....I got really pissed when I went to check out S>army and found the outragous price they put on the stuff I gave them.....

The administration of charity takes up so much $$! Instead of giving donated clothing to people who need clothing, charities set up thrift stores and mark the clothing to suit non-indigent people who like to shop at thrift stores. The same is true of household goods. Then administrative costs eat a good deal of the profit that would be used for the needy. The prices for furniture and linens and clothing at my local thrift shops are nothing that needy people could afford to buy. Used and well-used sofas for $179, etc. Items sit for long periods of time. Meanwhile, there are uncountable families who can't afford furniture or clothing or baby items or blankets.

I'd like to see an expose of this whole racket.

I also know that some charities allow antique dealers to skim donations on the cheap.

And what's with the procedure of accepting donations, trucking them to giant hubs, and then re-distributing to regional stores? That's what The Salvation Army does. Something donated in my town goes 100 miles to a regional hub even though they have four thrift stores in this town. That's got to be expensive.

I donate things locally to a small thrift shop run by the animal shelter. Why? Because their prices are very economical and folks can buy necessary items for a few dollars.

. . .that is equally conscientious. We took some old christmas decorations there. I went with a third and fourth box about 2 days later and they had a 5 foot, fully decorated Christmas tree we donated marked at $4. Tree, ornaments and topper all for 4 bucks. I've seen other stuff we've donated there for similarly good prices.

I felt pretty good about dealing with those people after that.
The Professor

of something I noticed in Goodwill once. LL Bean, which is a rather trendy store and catalogue , to their credit, donates coats and other items to Goodwill--I don't know where they come from--some appear to be new--or they may be returns or something--anyhow, I checked out a rack of winter coats that had the LL Bean label---they had prices on them that were near $100 dollars! I was shocked. Goodwill does not pay a cent for them--and here they are charging these prices--so I called LL Bean and asked about it--the woman I spoke to was unaware of that practice--next time I went into goodwill, the prices were marked down to a more reasonable price--

I predict it will be worse than last year.